Is Polyvagal Theory Untenable Episode 1 of 3

SHOW NOTES | EPISODE EP 7

The Polyvagal Theory Debate, Part 1 of 3 What Actually Happened — The Critique, the Response, and What "Untenable" Actually Means

Host: Kathy Couch, LCSW | March 2026

EPISODE SUMMARY

If you've been in any trauma-informed clinical space in the last ten years, you've almost certainly built some part of your practice on polyvagal theory. And then maybe recently you heard that 39 scientists published a paper calling it scientifically untenable — and you thought, wait, what?

That was my reaction too. And I think for a lot of clinicians, it landed somewhere between confusing and destabilizing. Do I need to throw out the whole framework?

The answer is no. But the conversation is worth having — carefully, honestly, and without either defending the theory or reflexively dismissing it because the headline was alarming. That's what this three-episode series is for.

In Part 1, we break down what actually happened, what each side argued, and what the word "untenable" actually means when scientists use it.

IN THIS EPISODE

[00:00] Podcast intro & Kathy on the Couch Membership Community overview [02:00] How the 39-scientist critique landed for clinicians — and why [05:00] What actually happened: the Grossman et al. critique and the 2026 exchange [09:00] What the critique is — and is not — about [13:00] The three-circuit model: dorsal vagal, sympathetic, and ventral vagal [17:30] RSA explained in plain language — what it is and why it matters here [22:00] What Porges said: clinical heuristic, mischaracterization, and integrative value [26:00] The straw man question: the theory vs. how it's been taught [30:00] Two things can be true: the DBT frame for holding the debate [33:00] What is not in dispute: safety, co-regulation, nervous system states [35:30] Preview: Episode 2 drops April 2nd — RSA, what each side says, and clinical implications

WHAT WE COVER

The critique is targeted. Grossman and colleagues are not arguing that co-regulation is a myth, that neuroception doesn't matter, or that nervous system states are irrelevant to clinical work. The debate is about specific neuroanatomical claims — specifically, whether respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) can function as a selective index of ventral vagal activity the way the theory requires.